About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Maufas 13, Mendoza 6, Us 5, Olsen 4, Murase 4, Wynns 4, Yee 3, Norton 3, San Joaquin 2, San Francisco 2, Mr. Kelly 2, Hr 1, Sacramento 1, The Union 1, Uniton 1, Mr. Davis 1, Mr. Bushman 1, Kelly 1, California 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 12, 2012
    6:30 - 7:00am PST  

6:30am
this report is annual or every five years? >> it's annual. >> it's actually both. it's done every year and what the government code says is that would like for developers in the city of san francisco to sort of having a non-binding five-year projection each year of what we're spending the money on, so theoretically we're not putting it in a box somewhere. we're not bound by those, but we try to give a listing of work reflect what can be spent on. >> has this group done this every year? >> they have done this report for us every year for the last, i think, four or five years. and one of the other things, by the way, i might add that they are doing for us now is that
6:31am
sacramento has determined that school districts are allowed this year to raise their developer fee amounts that we charge developers. however, the only way we can do that is we need to demonstrate under the government code certain specific demographic and other sort of financial and economic conditions in the city of san francisco have changed to warrant that increase. so we have actually retained them to see if we are entitled to raise our rates, which would obviously help us and we won't know that for several years. >> so this is a company that we subcontract with? >> yes. >> what is the amount for the work of this company? >> i think this work is $18 ,000 and the study is $25,000 on top of that, but that would
6:32am
only happen at times that we're looking to raise our rates and we have not raised our rates, since, i believe, 2005. >> roll call miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> thank you miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. maufas? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> president yee? >> aye. >> seven aye. item m discussion of other educational issues. none. item n, consent calendars resolutions. item o, vote on consent calendar moved and seconded under section f. roll call, please. >> thank you. miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas?
6:33am
>> i am taking the roll call on the consent calendar. >> miss mendoza? >> yes, except for k4. >> you are voting what on k4? >> i abstain. >> miss mendoza? >> yes except on k3, 5 and 6 or actually 5 got pulled. on 3 and 6, because they are retroactive. >> thank you. dr. murase? >> yes, point of information, so the personnel item was
6:34am
receive sered severed, correct? >> yes. >> the first item is f9 severed correct? okay, f13. i think commissioner maufas,
6:35am
you severed that? >> i did. we received courtesy of uesf president. are we in the midst of litigation and should we be discussing this item at all? >> the particular facts surrounding this item is a procedural matter based upon a submission of a resignation and then how that was addressed by our hr department. and what follow on things occurred. this can be discussed in open session. >> thank you, i appreciate that guidance. >> can we talk about -- are
6:36am
we indicating that miss olsen should continue with her resignation? what is our position? i know we changed the date. i heard that correction earlier from the superintendent's office. >> i will go through the timeline. president kelly indicated that she rescinded in one day, one day after she submitted her resignation. on the first of november, the individual emailed the principal at her school informing her she was going to resign and when would be the best time to do that? i have an attachment that supports that, should you want to see that. on the 6th of november, the individual teacher submitted her resignation effective november 16th. that was the 5th of november. >> it was on the 5th she
6:37am
submitted? >> the 5th of november she submitted her resignation and effective date on that submission and i have that, if you would like to see it, effective november 16th. on the 6th of november, the principal submitted the resignation to human resources through interoffice mail. on the 7th of november the resignation was entered into people's soft by human resources. on the 8th of november, hr, we in hr posted the position opening dated for 11/7/2012. on the 8th of november also an
6:38am
applicant, one of our teachers contacted the principal interested in the position. correction on the 9th of november. on the 13th of november, the teacher -- the subject teacher, the resignee stated that november 30th would be her last day and have i that attachment. on the 13th of november, the applicant interviewed with the principal of the school. on the 13th of november, the teacher in question submitted a
6:39am
second resignation, changing the effective date to 11/30. requesting that we change the date to 11/30. to november 30th from the 16th, which is why we changed that so we didn't have to do this twice. on the 14th of november, the teacher in question emailed the principal and asked if it was possible to be reinstated and i can quote what she said and i have that attachment. on the 16th of november, i think i will just paraphrase -- >> is in the principal's
6:40am
response on the 16th? >> on the 16th the teacher in question emailed to the principal and said i never received a response, but i did want to let you know that i am talking with the union and they may be contacting you. also a parent told me today there were some parents who complained about my teaching with you. i wasn't aware of this and can i meet you with and there is another attachment. the principal went back to the teacher and said i am not sure about rescinding your resignation and your labor representative would be the best to advise you in this situation. >> that is also on the 16th? >> that was on the 20th.
6:41am
the decision was made not to accept her rescission of her resignation. from legal and labor, our actions are appropriate. i will read to you the section from the agreement that we have with our contract with ue, which is pretty short. >> before you start that, can you tell me, is the 20th, i'm sorry, the 20th is when that was communicated to the subject miss olsen, is that correct? >> the first day that she asked to rescind was the 14th and asked how it would be done, to her principal, not to human resources, but to her principal. >> correct. i have the notes from the 16th
6:42am
and the 20th you said? >> at some point in here she was told -- i don't know the specific date that she was told, that the rescission would not be accepted, but the bottom line is that we considered accepting is it, but didn't. she had -- i will read to you a final -- if i read what the agreement says, i am not sure i can. anyway. it's under "resignation." a teacher's written offer the resignation shall be deemed accepted when filed with the board, superintendent or human resources department, except that if the teacher files a written revocation of his or her offer of resignation within three district working days, after its filing, shall be deemed -- it shall be deemed revoked. the board of education shall
6:43am
fix the effective date of the resignation no later than june 30th of the school year in which the residence nation was offered. district shall make good-faith effort to notify the uniton within 24 hours of the teacher's written offer of resignation, unless the teacher affirmatively requests confidentiality. and mr. kelly is correct that we did not appropriately notice the union. we have as a matter of practice, we have a lot of resignations throughout the year, and have not historically noticed the union. i did not know there was a requirement. my bad that we noticed the union, but certainly our attorney's opinion is that doesn't affect the fact that an adult teacher made an adult
6:44am
decision to resign. and there was no indication that -- and a -- in good faith based on the resignation, we hired another teacher and placed that teacher in that position the first of the month. i don't think she is in it yet, but has been fired to go into that job and has a contract to fill that position and that was done in good faith. i added a block that specifically states, do you want us to contact the union, yes or no? and then the last thing that i will submit to you is an email written by the teacher in support of the fact that it wasn't one day.
6:45am
written by the teacher to my staff and to a representative of the union, when says, "i would like to rescind my resignation, the date of this is the 30th of november and she said i would like to rescind my resignation. today is my last day with sfusd and i wanted to rescind about two weeks ago, which would have been the 14th, if she, in fact, did. we have no evidence that she submited it then, but it would have been too late. principal in question does not choose to -- no. 1 we have replaced her. no. 2 the principal does not choose to rescind it, nor do we. >> is seems that the first
6:46am
notification was november 7th, is that correct? >> she submitted on the 5th of november. >> 5th of november. the first resignation was november 5th? >> yes. >> and we're not hearing about revoking the resignation until late in november, is that correct? >> the 30th of november. >> the resignee sent out an email stating to staff that she resigned, is that correct? >> yes, she did. >> so when she put into motion wanting to revoke her resignation, she was actually
6:47am
past the timeframe of the parameters of when she could revoke? >> yes, she was. >> commissioner mendoza? >> i was wondering why we moved it from the 17th to the 30th? >> she submitted that and it was con [srao-epbts/] for us as well. con convenient for us as well and it's my understanding that the new teacher who was hired would not be available until the 1st of the month and asked her if she would stay until the end of the month and she submitted an extension of her time until the 30th of november.
6:48am
>> commissioner maufas? >> i guess you are not comfortable with this, but you have mentioned it and i will mention it as well. the discussion between the principal and miss olsen saying somebody is going to start on the 30th and she submitted a second resignation letter changing the date to the 30th. sounds like that is the reason. i am not going to project, but just guess on my own. and then on the 14th, miss olsen said you have an email asking the principal is it possible to be reinstated. is that correct? she submitted a second resignation letter to hr, changing the date to the 30th and that might have been after the cation conversation that you just mentioned and she asked the principal is it
6:49am
possible to be reinstated? >> she submitted the second resignation form on the 13th, requesting an effective date of 11/30, on the 13th. the day after that, the 14th, she remailed the principal and asked if it was possible to be reinstated. >> then on the 16th, she emailed the principal that she did not get a response? >> that she was talking to the union. >> is that when the principal says it would be better to talk to the union? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner murase? >> i have a question. does this resignation in any way impact our ability to reapply for another position within the district? >> it does not.
6:50am
>> any other comments? mr. kelly, you have crept up closer and closer so say something. >> i think we have initial confusion. if you look at the footnote on the letter, you will see that the initial resignation was submitted november 7th. which proposed the 16th, but the principal received her resignation and then the rescission for that. so the timeline that mr. bushman gave you would apply if that were the only thing, but she then submitted a rescission for that that doesn't show up in his timeline. then again when she was frustrated with the job again submitted a resignation, which she then again rescinded. so
6:51am
she has gone through this cycle twice. and what mr. bushman is giving you is action based on the first time that she did it and what we're following up is action based on the second. we thought the first one was already rescinded and that is why we didn't pursue that. >> so for clarification, mr. bushman, so there was no rescission -- she didn't rescind her initial november 7th resignation? >> she did not and, in fact her actions were that of someone who was planning to leave, told the school through written email, which i have, that she was going to leave. and she indicated at that point it would be the 30th, but there
6:52am
was no action taken either written or otherwise, that we can determine. but the bottom line is the requirement is within three working days that it be submitted in writing. >> so basically what happened is she put in a resignation on november 7th. she put in another resignation november 14th, but did not rescind the original one on november 7th, is that correct? >> she submitted a second resignation requesting to change the date. >> okay. thank you. >> from the 17th to the 30th. whether you can do that or can't do that, i will have to ask my lawyer, but the bottom line we were acting on a resignation and we acted to post and hire her replacement
6:53am
as we needed to do in order to cover that classroom in good faith well before she even talked about coming back. >> okay, let's see, no other questions. so why don't we have roll call -- to accept the recommendation yes. >> miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer. yes. >> miss maufas? >> no. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> yes. >> president yee? >> aye. >> the next item is k5 and
6:54am
commissioner wynns. >> i want to have it explained more, the private product that we were licensing, using through a license, was bought by a county office of education? >> originally they started out as the county office product, san joaquin county invented it and sold it to this company that could not handle the demands across the state and so they gave back to san joaquin county because it was not cost-effective. >> so when we started to license it, it was under the san joaquin license? >> i would have to go back and check the records. they put in for a three-year contract and it came back from contracts saying that we don't have three-year contracts with
6:55am
vendors in our districts. at that time consultants were attached to it, because we were training our teachers and staffs with consultants. this year when they put it through, they didn't realize it needed a k reso and it was the transition, because it's just software this year. we have a new budget person and also a new program administrator. so they were learning the processes, but it's been a continual product that we have been using as well. >> okay. >> i am interested in the county office dynamics and i am okay with this, but i would like to find out more about it. i have other sources to find out more about it and maybe i will do a little investigation and discuss it with staff if that would be okay? >> okay. >> thank you roll call please. >> thank you, miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> miss mendoza?
6:56am
>> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> president yee? >> aye. >> seven ayes. >> the next item. >> mr. davis, did you have a statement? was there something else we were supposed to do or just vote on it? >> there is not an additional statement other than the one i have sent out to the board members on two occasions just explaining that commissioner maufas' request based upon her employment with a non-profit organization is a remote activity, which is approvable and in compliance with the california government code provisions our policy is more stringent and that and it would take a waiver of our board policy for her to be totally on this position. that is what this is for.
6:57am
>> so is the recommendation to do a waiver then? >> yes. the recommendation is a waiver. >> the waiver is actually imbedded in this. >> okay good. thank you. any other commissioner comments? >> yes, i have a question for our attorney. i see that this is for the oaks children center and that is the place of employment of commissioner maufas, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> so that would seem that commissioner maufas would be not able to vote on any thing pertaining to the oaks children center. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> does that extend to not be able to vote -- since oak's children center is a non-public school placement, would that mean she would not be able to vote on any non-public school placement resolutions or any contracts? >> my advice to commissioner maufas is that she not vote on
6:58am
any non-public school matter. >> so then commissioner maufas would then excuse herself from any of those votes? >> excuse herself from any discussion, with any board members either in a meeting or not in a meeting and abstain from voting on all of those items, yes, ma'am. >> so are those topics to be discussed for example at a committee meeting, a committee of the whole or a curriculum committee meeting, would she then there be exempt from participating in those discussions? >> she would. >> would she be exempt from participating in any discussion around special education and contracts? >> i don't think so. the way the government code is written, is that basically, if there is some financial gain nexus between what is being discussed and the fact that she employed by a non-public school or a situation where an
6:59am
appearance, if a contract was not awarded to one non-public school, that was maybe a competitor of oaks. she would not involve herself in anything there there would be the appearance of personal gain because that could provide funds to oaks that could be her salary. if it's just a special education question in general that is unrelated to non-public schools, i of course will look at each of those individually, but i think she is able to discuss and vote on these matters. >> so this would not exempt commissioner maufas to vote on our budget? >> it would not, but my advice to her when she votes on the budget, whatever line item of the budget accounts for that particular funding line, that she would identify that and abstain from voting on that piece. >> okay. and so just for procedures and roberts